Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Mike Taylor wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
> >
> > Doesn't seem too much to worry about here, and I think some people
> > are getting tired of saying "the oviraptorosaur-therizinosaur
> > clade".
>
> Since that's the concept that the new name is trying to capture,
> surely the definition _must_ be the node rather than the stem?

If therizinosaurs were not included, it would probably become a
heterodefinitional synonym of _Oviraptorosauria_, if _Oviraptorosauria_ is
defined as Clade(_Oviraptor_ <-- _Alxasaurus_, _Passer_, _Troodon_,
_Ornithomimus_) or something like that.

The stem is, IMHO, a more useful clade to name because there are certain
taxa (e.g., _Microvenator_, _Thecocoelurus_) which fairly securely belong
to the stem-based clade, but it is ambiguous as to whether they belong to
the node-based clade.

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>